You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No matter what the training, at somepoint in the future hes going to dwell on this isn't he? Off at a tangent but it reminded me of the machine gunners of WWI who couldn't cope due to the numbers they had shot.
His choice, he pulls the trigger, his problem. Why even create a fuss about it?
Oh too late...
Yeah but he didn't do it for freedom, and the best Goddamn country in the world.
Anyway some Finish guy in WW2 had over 500 kills.
Imagine if a foreign government paid for a sniper to come over here and using his skill and judgement pick off those he deemed a threat.
Reckon it'd leave a few people upset, eh...
Anyway some Finish guy in WW2 had over 500 kills.
Ah- when Russia invaded Finland and lost over 100,000 troops to the Fins wasn't it? If it wasn't for that debacle, they wouldn't have learnt their lesson and the Germans would have inflicted more casualties and the Russians would have had equally no cold weather gear provisions- a change (or more likely prolonged the war?).
I believe so. But still he also didn't do it for freedom, his buddies, and the best GODDAMN county in the world.
Some strong language. NSFW
Kryton57 - Member
His choice, he pulls the trigger, his problem. Why even create a fuss about it?
or 16 year old joins army then at some point keeps following orders and has a long life to deal with it.
Off at a tangent but it reminded me of the machine gunners of WWI who couldn't cope due to the numbers they had shot.
Its quite a challenge for modern armies - you can train someone to aim and shoot a gun accurately, but its harder to make them want to hit and kill someone. In old-fashioned mass-conscription warfare really soldiers on both sides were really just hoping gunfire would just make the other side go away. They were shooting to scare, not to kill.
[img] 
[/img]
600,000+ 😯
my grandfather in law was a lancaster bomber, bomber and while not so bad now had some very big guilt issues about the civillians hed killed and colleagues hed survived
he never spoke about it to my MIL or the family, just suffered from a lot of ptsd and depression (and took it out on the family)
then at our wedding told it all to my uncle (who hed never met b4)
To be fair I think that Winter War image is wrong.
Wiki lists the casualties as
[img] 
[/img]
Must re-read up on that conflict. From memory the Fins funnelled a badly dressed battle group into a narrow strip of land?
mikewsmith - Member
Kryton57 - Member
His choice, he pulls the trigger, his problem. Why even create a fuss about it?or 16 year old joins army then at some point keeps following orders and has a long life to deal with it.
Don't join the army then *shrugs*
Don't join the army then
He didn't. He joined the Royal Navy.
From memory the Fins funnelled a badly dressed battle group into a narrow strip of land?
Repeatedly. They even funnelled them onto a frozen lake that they blew up
Good fictional account of the Finnish winter war in "Unknown Soldier" by Vaino Linna
[i]Don't join the army then *shrugs*[/i]
Err, I believe he joined the marines. I understand they can be a bit unforgiving if someone confuses the two.
Read the article this morning.
Yes I am sure he thought about what he did, as Kelly said that was his job and he was saving lives of the soldiers on his side. If you search back there are interviews with the crew of Enola-Gay who dropped the atomic bomb, they have a similar view that their actions shortened the war and saved a lot of lives
I really enjoyed Enemy at the Gates
Winter War and Continuation war still very raw in Finland. The reason that Russia didn't take over Finland like the rest of Eastern Europe is they took such a hammering at the hands of the Finns. There was a price for the Finns they lost a lot of land in the settlement. The old Finns I met in Karellia really hated the Russians.
Anyone know which battle the frozen lake shelling took place?
I know the Germans shelled Lake Ladoga during the siege of Leningrad, and the Battle of the Ice took place in the 13th Century where a load of Knights were drowned after retreating onto thin ice but can't find anything re Winter war.
There is a misconception that the Russians relied exclusively on frontal attacks but in fact they had great success with flanking, and in the end took more land than they had demanded.
The Finns were reliant on their quick movement and local knowledge, while the Russians were hindered by inexperience after Uncle Joe's purges. Also the Finns were defending their homes but the Russian troops had little reason to fight, except not getting shot by their own side.
Major intelligence failings/hubris on the Russian side too, they thought the Finns would welcome them and it would take less than a week, hence the summer uniforms.
He didn't. He joined the Royal Navy.
Ha! They [i]hate[/i] being reminded of that.
The truth is of course that whilst RM are a part of the Navy, he joined the marines. He'll never be a sailor and sailors won't be marines (although they can and do become RN Commandos).
Err, I believe he joined the marines. I understand they can be a bit unforgiving if someone confuses the two.
And vice versa.
[i]If you search back there are interviews with the crew of Enola-Gay who dropped the atomic bomb, they have a similar view that their actions shortened the war and saved a lot of lives[/i]
If you've just killed the entire population of a major city, you'd have to rationalize it somehow, or go a bit bonkers, i'd have thought.
...RN Commandos.
Is there such a thing now? Or is that SBS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Naval_Commandos
Is there such a thing now?
Not as a formed unit. Many RN slots within 3CDO require CDO trained ranks. Dentists, medics, a good few within CHF have the qual and others.
SBS is now joint forces (as per SAS) and is commanded by DSF, not the Admiral Navy type bloke.
Not as a formed unit. Many RN slots within 3CDO require CDO trained ranks. Dentists, medics, a good few within CHF have the qual and others.
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense.
I seem to recall Navy EOD were doing land-based Afghan tours. If the skills are there, makes sense to use them.
I seem to recall Navy EOD were doing land-based Afghan tours. If the skills are there, makes sense to use them.
I instructed a few. I seem to remember that if they didn't pass the course, they didn't get their promotion or slot! For a 35 year old dentist that's a lot of pressure when you're running around with 18-20 year old fit as **** RE and RAs.
Oh back on topic, the RM snipers course is regarded as one of the best in the world and the only course ran by regulars which SF bods go on. Not sure if it's a "Q" course though.
If you search back there are interviews with the crew of Enola-Gay who dropped the atomic bomb, they have a similar view that their actions shortened the war and saved a lot of lives
Theres a few trains of thought on this. The viewpoint of the Japanese as savage aggressors getting what they deserved and sub-human to segregation-America. Then ontop of that the plain old shortening the war and the 'say this to the media' from the old school American government/Hoover era etc afterwards.
Even so, I bet in private on a dark night one or two of them would have dwelled a fair few times on that.
When you're out of the Army/Navy and you've managed to kill a few people and are sat alone after a few beers I doubt any human being would simply think 'it was my duty so **** it'.
In old-fashioned mass-conscription warfare really soldiers on both sides were really just hoping gunfire would just make the other side go away. They were shooting to scare, not to kill.
Yes this was very common. Mostly they fired "towards" the enemy rather than at them.
One of the main difference between newly formed units and "battle hardened" units was that ones that had saw more combat generally shot to kill which obviously made them much more effective
@hora I think many (most ?) people just deal with it by shutting it out. There where many stories on the Auschwitz 70th anniversary where survivors had said they hadn't spoken about it till 50 years after. Of course that's different than you thinking about it. I do think what's significant now vs world wars is they where a collective experience and returning soldiers where undeniably treated as heroes. Much more difficult now when veterans are treated as criminals by some parts of society. Snipers too must have quite a different experience seeing an individual target in their sights and taking a very deliberate aim.
The singularly most pointless thread ever.
The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served (excluding of course the issue of war crimes).
The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served
Hi, if you read alot on the history, ethics and social impact of war you tend to have an interest in such topics or do we have to wait until this event/bloke becomes history?
I'm not taking criticism from someone who holidays at a modern-day Butlins BTW.
geetee1972The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served (excluding of course the issue of war crimes).
This is bullshit.
The only people who get to comment or analyse the actions of those that served are those that served (excluding of course the issue of war crimes).
That in itself is debatable as we the taxpayers fund the armed forces~ they are theoretically working on our behalf...
This video manages to make some very strong points in under 10 minutes... the birth defects from depleted Uranium are particularly disturbing:
Grandfather in law was also a serviceman and was part of the Allied invasion of Sicily. I spent a lot of time with him in his final weeks as he was at a hospital in London a short tube ride from my office so would go a few nights a week to see how he was and give my mother-in-law a break.
As he'd only had daughters and granddaughters the chance for him to talk to another man about this had been limited so me and the father-in-law heard a lot in those last weeks about life in the Army.
I was amazed at how he'd not spoken about it to anyone else as he didn't want to burden them, and also how it wasn't something that he wanted 'women' to have to listen to.
A truly great man, and up to that point you would've have thought his Army life wasn't too bad. A real eye opener for me to be honest but while he was happy to get it off his chest - he had no real remorse as it was ' a job that needed doing'
Not sure if/how that contributes to anything in this thread but I'd not really thought about it for the last 3 or 4 years and while the content of those memories were quite grim - it has brought me a smile reminiscing about our chats in those last couple of weeks in the company of such a man.
I'll admit that I haven't a clue and don't even like killing slugs but I imagine that there are a small percentage of people who actually enjoy killing, maybe they become snipers.
This video manages to make some very strong points in under 10 minutes... the birth defects from depleted Uranium are particularly disturbing:
Birth defects from DU are a total bunch of horseshit, with no epidemiological evidence what so ever to back it up.
The high rates of deformities in Iraq are likely caused by a mixture of pollution, ancient fertilizers and chemical weapons.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium ]This is an interesting piece which brings into question what you state as fact[/url]
[i]Epidemiological studies and toxicological tests on laboratory animals point to it as being immunotoxic,[85] teratogenic,[86][87] neurotoxic,[88] with carcinogenic and leukemogenic potential.[89] A 2005 report by epidemiologists concluded: "the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10][/i]
That's from Wiki, so a claim of "Birth defects from DU are a total bunch of horseshit, with no epidemiological evidence what so ever to back it up." is clearly wide of the mark.
I'll admit that I haven't a clue and don't even like killing slugs but I imagine that there are a small percentage of people who actually enjoy killing, maybe they become snipers.
Read a few of the British Imperial War Museum books and interviews- apparently there are some people that are natural born killers. Normal in civie life, would never even have thought about it before but in war they excel. I guess for those few - they would miss the action.
Absence of moral or ethical considerations, focus on maximum effectiveness.
I'll admit that I haven't a clue and don't even like killing slugs but I imagine that there are a small percentage of people who actually enjoy killing, maybe they become snipers.
You may find this interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16544490
'Enjoy' may be the wrong word, because that could mark you out as a sociapathic psychopath. But I know what you mean.
On a personal note, when I joined the reserves, my introduction was a sergeant talking about an SA80, Light Support Weapon and a bayonet, all sat on a table; he said something like, "if you're looking at these and thinking 'Guns! Knives! Rarrr!' then we don't want you. If you're thinking 'they look like serious bits of kit that could cause damage' then we do."
That all said, the guy in my section that recited the entire Full Metal Jacket 'this is my gun!' in the mess was a noted constant source of worry. But then he also scored incredibly highly on the simulated battle range...
That in itself is debatable as we the taxpayers fund the armed forces~ they are theoretically working on our behalf...
Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves.
Service men and women are sent into conflict zones. They are given a set of rules of engagement and for as long as they follow those rules, the only people who get the right to comment on their actions are themselves.
The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.
If they commit war crimes that is a different matter, but outside of that it comes down to individual conscience.
Thats an interesting link. You could say part of the trauma is collateral damage, seeing carnage etc and thinking you were part of that. Whereas a sniper knows what he is shooting is the clear and target and why.
The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.
No it isn't, we all do it all the time. It's called empathy.
[i]The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.[/i]
The idea that you're suggesting my home is cosy is etc etc... 😉
I don't think anyone on this thread has pontificated at all, most sensible replies are suggesting that it must be at some point difficult to come to terms with. Most military organsations make sure their snipers and marksmen/women are sensible and level headed, however the taking of human life in such an intimate way might very well be traumatic later in life for some of those men.
discussing that isn't Breathtakingly arrogant (or any other hyperbole you care to add).
geetee1972
Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves.Service men and women are sent into conflict zones. They are given a set of rules of engagement and for as long as they follow those rules, the only people who get the right to comment on their actions are themselves.
The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.
No. This is bullshit and deeply offensive. It's rhetoric like this that leads to a deification of soldiers and the military leading to a culture where to question the war, is to denigrate "the troops" and "our heroes". It's a school of thought that has come to the fore since the Iraq war and suits those who would profit from killing and war mongering. Question the war - well you must hate out troops. Question our troops? They fight and die for your freedom, so you can't question them unless you are one.
It's a prevalent attitude in the U.S and has come to the fore in the UK thanks to the Sun, RBL and their parasites like Britain First. Look at the way the Sun uses the terms "Soldier" and "Hero" almost interchangeably except of course when a "Hero" is convicted of assault, rape or murder.
This kind of bullshit glorifies professional killers. People who had no moral qualms being employed in the business of killing foreigners just so long as Dave or Tony says it's okay.
Love our soldiers. Love the war. Love our country. Hate our enemy. Dehumanise our enemy. Kill our enemy without question. Our soldiers are heroes. Killing our faceless inhuman enemy is noble. Killing is noble. Our military is noble. Our government is noble. Our country is noble.
It's a precursor to fascism.
Without soldiers signing up to be paid killers the US and British governments wouldn't be able to pursue illegal, morally barren neo-imperial foreign policies in the way that currently are. If you want to join the army, yeah fine. You want to be a tool to kill, I don't hate you for it, but if you believe it's justifiable or "right" then you are an idiot or a liar.
Well there is no "average" serviceman/woman, just as there are no "average" civilians. Different people handle this stuff in different ways. I have a friend who fully utilised a GMPG in Iraq a few years ago, and is completely clear. Talking about it, he's not pleased or upset in any way "I couldn't give a ****". I have another friend who put 2 or 3 down and has been in and out of combatstress for quite some time. Both quite regular, seemingly well balanced chaps.
This kind of bullshit glorifies professional killers.
No, this^^ is Bullshit.
being behind the sights of weapons is one thing, seeing the aftermath is a very different thing. Thankfully, most blokes will go through their entire military career without having to see up close and personal the effects of their skills, though will always know what the outcome was -it's a distance you put between the reality. Patrolling through streets after an IED or firefight are the memories that stay with you. I would liken the experience to seeing some snuff type film as the sights, and being there in person as well, being there in person!
Like Wrecker, ive known people to really struggle with the effects of battle, some having never been near the pointy end. Everyone handles it differently, those that handle it well will have accepted the job that had to do and the outcomes from a very early stage.
Last year I got into a punch up with a driver who knocked me off my bike, couldnt sleep for a week and kept ringing the police to ask if he was ok!
I take the view though that whilst most people may not be able to relate to the more ruthless amongst us we'll be greatfull they exist should push come to shove.
Still makes you wonder what he'd have been like in normal soceiety and what he'll be like on return.
btw wasnt the biggest single loss of life the bombing of Dresden which many average blokes must have contributed, maybe its in us all.
Without soldiers signing up to be paid killers the US and British governments wouldn't be able to pursue illegal, morally barren neo-imperial foreign policies in the way that currently are. If you want to join the army, yeah fine. You want to be a tool to kill, I don't hate you for it, but if you believe it's justifiable or "right" then you are an idiot or a liar.
This is "bullshit and deeply offensive".
On joining the forces you are doing just that - joining the forces. Like the police, the NHS and education, you are a tool for the government to use for the good of the country in any manner they see fit. Or, to put it another way, you do your master's bidding whether you agree or not. That may be "...pursu[ing] illegal, morally barren neo-imperial foreign policies", but unfortunately you have signed on the dotted line. Similarly it may be helping to rebuild a typhoon-hit island or stabilising a previously war-torn area, but let's not split hairs here. [i]But[/i], if you can't deal with the idea of that (and I struggled with it when I applied) then don't join. A career in IT probably pays better anyway.
However, what you shouldn't discount the good the forces do for individuals. Character building; motivation; discipline; friendship forming; achieving previously unthinkable goals; education; not to mention travel opportunities. You are not merely a "tool to kill" (which in itself is incredibly offensive).
I agree with geetee here: "Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves." The individual soldier/airman/rating/marine does not decide to invade a hostile country for oil. That's the job of our elected leaders.
Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves.
Totally with you on that~ as can be seen by the need for charities like Help for Heroes and the Invictus Games, the government makes minimal provision for those they gladly recruit and indoctrinate when they are no longer of value as a 'human resource'
Wonder what the real motives behind recent wars are and who really profits*?
(*apart from Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, G4S etc and the politicians and media propagandists in their employ/clique)
No real-life experience, although i have a few friends / associates that have seen active service and as others have said above, have had very different outcomes as a result of their different attitudes and experiences. One guy is still quite ****ed up as a result of what he saw in Bosnia 20 years ago but was 'powerless' to do anything about; another who by all accounts took lives in a very brutal up close and personal way but has no real issues because it was a them or us moment.
Back on topic - What i wonder is whether someone like a sniper is more or less likely to be affected. Setting aside that they are selected and trained to be the sort of people who can deal with firing a single shot and watching the result through their 'scope, as opposed to people trained to fire lots of shots in 'the general direction of' but maybe not being sure whether you actually hit anyone. Is the fact that you 'know' you're killing bad men easier than for example firing artillery shells on a built up area where innocents may be killed but where you don't know and don't see it happen?
he also scored incredibly highly on the simulated battle range...
😆
You're not far wrong there, Rich_s. 😐
😆
Pimpmaster JazzOn joining the forces you are doing just that - joining the forces. Like the police, the NHS and education, you are a tool for the government to use for the good of the country in any manner they see fit.
The key difference here being of course that in those other professions the likelihood of being sent to another sovereign country to kill it's citizens is pretty slim. Anyway, if it wasn't clear, what I find offensive, and borderline fascistic is the idea that it should be forbidden or taboo to question or discuss the actions of soldiers.
There is a quote I saw in the Imperial War museum, I probably haven't got it right but the general meaning is
War is an act of violence, anything other than total violence is folly (or it might have been insanity)
I for one am glad we have the military to protect us here and abroad. I am glad they are good at their job part of which is deterrent and part of it does involve killing people.
Question soldiers actions all you like. But unless they have committed a war crime, they have done nothing wrong, even if you would not act in that way.
Whilst I/we may disagree with some of the wars that our troops have been involved in, the bottom line is that "most" of the time they are sent to do their job and act that way so that at some point in the future you/we/I don't have to do those same actions to protect ourselves nearer home.
fwiw, I do think it very stupid for this report of this British sniper to be in the press, in what appears to be a case of one-upmanship with the Yanks over a bloody film
It takes a very special kind of person to be a sniper, this makes interesting reading.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield
Most combatants just don't kill the enemy, snipers on the other hand are the 1 in 100 who are really, really good at it and do it without compunction.
Cue ridiculous, irrelevant bollocks about Nuremberg......
This is an interesting piece which brings into question what you state as fact
From your link Jivehoney
But the conclusions contrasted dramatically from previous statements about the research findings from Iraqi Ministry of Health (MOH) officials involved in the study. Earlier this year, BBC News spoke to MOH researchers who confirmed the joint report would furnish "damning evidence" that rates of birth defects are higher in areas experiencing heavy fighting in the 2003 war. In an early press release, WHO similarly acknowledged "existing MOH statistics showing high number of CBD cases" in the "high risk" areas selected for study.
A classic case of confusing correlation with causation, those areas seeing massive increases in Birth defects were also seeing rising birth defects before the 2nd gulf war. Many of these cities and towns were also those heavily involved in the Iraq-Iran war. Many of them are also massively contaminated by a huge array of other environmental contaminants.
That's from Wiki, so a claim of "Birth defects from DU are a total bunch of horseshit, with no epidemiological evidence what so ever to back it up." is clearly wide of the mark.
Not really, that's a pretty flawed epidemiological study. Links between birth defects and DU have never been proven in any other area, such as Kosovo and Bosnia. In fact they don't even have elevated rates of birth defects in comparison to many other countries and localities that have never been bombed by DU munitions.
Does anyone remember a documentary from the '90s, presented by Grub Smith? It started with the stats about how few soldiers in WWII fired their weapons and how few of those who did fired them at anyone. Postwar research showed that the tiny proportion who were actually shooting at people were evenly split between being psychopaths and people who were doing it out of a sense of duty and responsibility to their squad mates.
The documentary then went on to describe the efforts since the war to increase the number of soldiers who would fire at the enemy yet were not psychopaths. Some fairly disturbing attempts were made but in the end it seems to have come down to getting recruits used to shooting at human-like targets through drilling and training. The effect is that when they are faced with an actual human target their training takes over and they don't get stuck on the thought that they are about to try and kill a real live human being.
Apparently this training has become very effective over the years. The documentary however ended by making the point that once a soldier has left the battlefield they often do have those thoughts about having shot and killed people and that armies have yet to become as good as handling the after effects of making people effective killers as they have become in training them to be that way.
EDIT: The documentary was from 2004 and called "The Truth About Killing", according to Wikipedia. Odd, as I was sure I'd watched it when I was a student.
Anyway, if it wasn't clear, what I find offensive, and borderline fascistic is the idea that it should be forbidden or taboo to question or discuss the actions of soldiers.
Isn't that the general gist of this thread? Discussing the actions and mindset required for a particular, highly trained and highly skilled, branch of soldiering?
The documentary however ended by making the point that once a soldier has left the battlefield they often do have those thoughts about having shot and killed people and that armies have yet to become as good as handling the after effects of making people effective killers as they have become in training them to be that way.
Which is something modern militaries have been struggling with for a long time.
Or maybe I just read too much into Rambo - First Blood... 😉
The essence of War is violence, moderation in war is imbecility
said by (I think) a WW1 admiral, who probably knows all about the futility of war I'd have though
without derailing the thread entirely. I personally think it's the duty of citizens [i]and[/i] the armed forces to question and debate every single decision that takes us into war. Were are all a part of society, and the armed forces are not removed from that. Expressing them as mere tools of their political masters is a short step away from "Just following orders"
what seems more worrying to me is that patriotic willy waving about 'our snipers killed more, lets be honest muslims, than the american one did' isnt any different than a jihadi on youtube bragging about blowing up/decapitating westerners?
and likewise, is only likely to provoke more fighting
kimbers, you need to remember that there are/were a large number of mercenary's fighting in Iraq and Afghan and these tended to be some of the bigger issues, alot of them coming from old soviet block states. So stating it was "us" vs "muslims" is harsh but also incorrect. The area of operations was and never will be about race. If the americans wish to think this way then fine, but i would have hoped we can distinguish more succinctly in these matters..
Are private military contractors mercenaries?
[img] 
[/img]
As an aside, Malcolm Ri****d, cousin of Leon Brittan ([url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/defence-secretary-over-rules-advice-and-gives-a-jobs-boost-to-westland-ri****d-puts-britain-first-in-copter-deal-1.690862 ]also known for dealing with Westland[/url]) and father of journalist Hugo Ri****d, also shared directorship of a company with Sir John Chilcot for a number of years...
Could his request for the CIA torture report be a conflict of interest?
RMC's after passing out (32 week training which involves how to kill someone effectively) serve as General Duties RMC's for two years and after that choose a specific field to go into, one being a sniper. So the RM has had a lot of time to think and choose his path with hands on experience/advise from other RM's carrying out the same work who will tell them if they think they are suitable. They also have many, many hours of lectures about taking a life, what to expect after this has happened mentally and physically. Allied to this they have constant support from Pardre's and counselors from day one of their training right the way though till they leave the Royal Navy.
I would question the accuracy of the number !
170 ?
The Bootneck counting course ends at 30
[b]M[/b]uscles
[b]A[/b]re
[b]R[/b]equired
[b]I[/b]ntelligence
[b]N[/b]ot
[b]E[/b]ssential
An oldie but a goodie!
That's a bit rich coming from a squaddie and an institution that brought us the Paras, that bastion of intelligence and foresight! 😆
I want one too ...
[img] 
[/img]
... how bloody much!!! 😯
Whilst figures stated are debatable, given the 'special relationship' between UK+US governments (and intelligence services), this puts things in perspective when we are fed media hype surrounding ISIS/Al-Qaeda/the preferred bogeyman of the war machine:
[img] 
[/img]
From what I've seen on US and UK telly when you join the army all you do is help people after a disaster while the locals wave and smile at you.
Macavity - Member
I am far normal than you lot at 39% ... 